Grove City council votes to draft charter changing government to council–manager

Grove City Council voted unanimously July 21 to direct staff to prepare a draft charter that would change the city's form of government to a councilmanager system, clearing a procedural step that puts the question onto a path toward eventual review and possible placement on a ballot.

Council members debated the scope of changes, but fronted the council's decision was a recommendation from a citizen Charter Review Committee and the desire to present a single, comprehensive proposal to voters. Councilmember Ted Berry moved for the council to adopt the direction to draft, and the motion passed by recorded voice vote in the council chamber with: Burrows, Anderson, Wilson, Houck, Holt, Berry and Du voting yes.

The vote followed more than an hour of editorial discussion during a pre-meeting work session in which council members reviewed language in the city charter and the Charter Review Committee's January report. Several council members said the committee's majority preferred a councilmanager form (members Free, Kintz, Parks, Segala and Zimomra listed that preference in the printed report), while others argued for hybrid or strong-mayor alternatives. Council members repeatedly emphasized that any change would require further drafting, legal review and an eventual decision about timing and ballot placement.

City Attorney Stephen Smith and Clerk Tammy Kelly participated in the discussion, noting practical steps: staff would draft a concrete charter text, coordinate with the Franklin County Board of Elections about timing and ballot mechanics, and advise on which election cycle would minimize special-election costs. Counsel advised that some changes would only take effect after the incumbents' current terms end and that charter amendments are implemented under the Ohio Constitution's procedures for municipal charters.

Council members who supported the motion said the committee's work and outside input favored the councilmanager approach as the clearest route to address governance concerns raised during the review. Members who expressed caution urged a substantial public education effort and additional discussion of details such as mayoral duties, transition timing, and compensation.

Council President Hauck said the purpose of the session was to move beyond repeated reopenings of the subject and to create a draft document for formal consideration. The council agreed the draft would be a starting point for additional debate and for eventual legislation to place charter proposals before voters.

The direction to draft is procedural: it does not change the current charter or transfer powers. Any final charter amendment would require further council votes and voter approval. Council members asked staff to return with a draft, legal analysis, and an election-timing plan that would identify a recommended ballot cycle and the likely fiscal impacts of any transition.